W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org > August 2008

Re: toward a schedule of HTML WG issues

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:02:25 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: public-html-wg-issue-tracking <public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1219424545.4554.264.camel@pav.lan>

On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 18:21 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I've been thinking and talking about a schedule
> > of issues for a while, e.g. [01 Aug]
> 
> Appreciated. I'm looking forward
> 
> > My sense of due process says that development groups,
> > peer working groups, and such should get 3 to 6 weeks
> > notice in preparation for a Working Group
> > decision on an issue. Here's a suggestion for
> > actually closing some issues:
> > 
> > 
> > 21 Aug
> > 28 Aug ISSUE-55 head-profile
> >  4 Sep 
> > 11 Sep ISSUE-32 table-summary
> > 18 Sep ISSUE-31 missing-alt
> > 25 Sep
> >  2 Oct 
> >  9 Oct
> > 16 Oct
> > 23 Oct (TP week) ISSUE-41 Decentralized-extensibility (requirement)
> > 30 Oct
> 
> So, for the first one, would that be 3..6 weeks starting Aug 28?

No, what I had in mind is: ending 28 Aug.

The norm is that WG members get a week to consider a question
and respond. The dates above are suggested as the start of that
week-long period.

This doesn't give 3 weeks notice on
head-profile, but I'm reasonably sure all the relevant parties
have already been in contact with us and said what they
have to say.
In yesterday's telcon, we observed that discussion on head-profile
is just repeating the same arguments, so it's probably time
to put the question.  Mike took the action.
  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/75


> > I'd like to fit some more requirements issues in the
> > schedule leading up to the TP week; this is just
> > a starting sketch.
> > 
> > I also suggest we demote many/most of our OPEN issues to RAISED,
> > and discourage discussion of issues that aren't OPEN.
> >   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open
> 
> We can try that, but I'm not too optimistic about telling people what to 
> discuss. In the worst case, the discussion just moves over to the WHATWG 
> list.

Yes, that is a concern. I generally prefer to leave
discouragement implicit and just encourage the kind of
discussion we want. But it's not working very well
so far. Maybe more encouragement in the right
direction will do the trick, but I've asked other
leaders of large mailing lists, and they've advised
that individual off-list mail is pretty important
for traffic shaping, if not explict on-list policy
declarations.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 17:02:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 August 2008 17:02:59 GMT